So the Kravitz thread got me all spun up even though it shouldn't. Not so much due to his nonsensical drivel, but more because of some of the responses in the thread.

There has been this theme all year about:

A) Paul only got better because Danny was out

B) Lance only got better because Danny opened up a starting spot for him

C) The team will struggle to integrate Danny into the starting lineup.

So when I dug up the records of the team with and without Danny the last 2 years and verified what I thought was obvious, that Danny makes the team better in fact, not just opinion (record is better with than without), it got me thinking of what "better" looked like. If they won more than how were they doing it while Paul wasn't as good, Lance wasn't as good and they were "struggling" to play with Danny as a starter too.

One big one stood out - ROY HIBBERT. Last year Hibbert was a much better offensive player than he's been this year. Why is it that people are more willing to credit Paul George being better in his THIRD SEASON (ie, Reggie Miller's highest PPG season, one of Danny's best seasons, and so on) because Danny wasn't there, but DO NOT BLAME Roy's post all-star season (ie, already proven good) fall off on Danny being out.

So Roy struggles and it's got nothing to do with Danny missing, but if Paul gets better at age 22 than he was at age 21, that's all because Danny got out of the way...even though Paul's FG% and 3P% ARE NOT BETTER THIS YEAR VS LAST. His Steals and Blocks p36 are the same. His Reb p36 are a touch up.

Only two real things changed in his game - he takes more FGAs per minute than he did last year, thus his PPG is up. He's not shooting better, just more. And the one good improvement - his assists p36 are definitely up, going from 2.9 to 3.8....except that last year WITH Danny they went from 1.8 his rookie year to 2.9.

In other words, the one statistically noticeable improvement in Paul's game was something he's been improving independent of Granger playing or not.

Not only all this, but because so much focus is on Paul to create now he's seen a rise in his TOs p36. Not much, but noticeable.

Lance is also in his 3rd year. He's only had two noticeable improvements - FG% (esp 3P%) and TOs. In all other ways he's been about identical to last year p36. If anything Lance showed off season work on his shooting and then cooled down as the season moved along, which would be the opposite of "getting better due to playing time". Even the reduced TOs peaked at a low in DEC and have returned the last 2 months.

One change for both of these guys that is partially due to Danny is MINUTES PER GAME. Of course Danny wasn't keeping Paul from playing since they both started. And Paul's minutes are in line with a typical starter - 38. Lance is up to 29 which is in line with a standard 6th man.

Are the minutes up because of no Danny, or at the minutes up because both guys are in a natural progression to improve in their 3rd season. Both are only 22, the two YOUNGEST PLAYERS ON THE TEAM. But if they get better it's got nothing to do with age, maturity or playing games after only playing 1-2 seasons of NCAA ball. I suggest that Paul and Lance were on course to be better this year anyway and that means due to play increased minutes anyway.

Meanwhile Roy. Roy p36 is about the same in most ways. The one positive is his high point in blocks p36 which are up 50% over several consistent years prior.

But on the negative side Roy is way down in FG%, down in FTAs p36, and up in fouls p36. Roy takes the same number of FGAs but creates a lot less points from them.

The story seems to be that on defense they are funneling guys to him thus the rise in blocks and fouls, or he is just being a lot more aggressive with the same results. On offense it could just be in his head, but it could also be the lack of Danny's outside scoring and general captain presence for Roy to feed off of. Roy gets a big contract right when the current star goes down, pushing Roy to the forefront and ramping up the pressure.

To add to this argument I'll say that since Paul has become the ASG face of the team Roy has seen his shooting touch coming back. Prior to Paul being announced as an All-star officially (Jan 24th I believe), Roy was shooting 41.5%. Since then he's at 45% with only the Brooklyn and @Denver games as noteworthy poor outings. Roy has been at nearly 59% since that Brooklyn game, though some of that is due to reduced FGAs and dependance on Roy.

Still that dependance factor, either due to Roy pressuring himself or simply needing to take shots when he isn't open would appear to be an item that Granger could alleviate by being out tthere.

The team has a better defensive rating than last year but a worse offensive rating. The eFG% for the team is about identical. What's different is the pace is down a bit and the FTA to FGA ratio is much worse this year. They've turned it over a bit more this year and created less TOs themselves. And as expected while the eFG% is in the park, the 3P% is down a point this year which is of course Danny's speciality.

So ultimately the team isn't really better this year by winning PCT in spite of the emergance of Paul and Lance. Reallly they've mostly had a natural progression and helped fill the Danny void while leaving a void of their own that hasn't been replaced by the bench players. Had Danny been there all along there is no reason why Paul and Lance wouldn't have been expected to play more this season and put up numbers similar to their prior seasons in terms of p36. And it's possible that some other factors like Roy's FG% might not have been as bad.

This would have left the team as "like last year" but better than that due to the extra productive minutes from Paul and Lance. The total would have left the offense less dependent on Roy and the team less dependent on bench minutes, which have clearly been a weakness.

Danny's return games have not reduced the minutes for Paul or Lance - Paul's played 42 min the last 4 games, (4-5 above his average) and Lance has played 26.5 which is down about a minute on his average, although in the two tough games he played 29 which is above his average. In those 2 games Danny got 18 minutes, and combined with the increase to Paul and Lance's season average in those same 2 games, the minutes not only didn't come from them but they also joined Danny in taking those minutes from elsewhere...which is exactly what will happen in the playoffs anyway.

BlueCollarColts

03-02-2013, 07:06 PM

this post reminds me of what LeBron said about Paul, when a reporter asked him how Paul has gotten better he said it wasn't that he wasn't capable of this last year, its just that Danny being out made him realize he is capable of this. Though if you are gonna tell me Paul has not improved on offense from last year to this year and that the only reason he is better is he is shooting more so he has a higher ppg average I will strongly disagree

Naptown_Seth

03-02-2013, 07:09 PM

A follow up that I think falls on Vogel and the staff, I noticed that most of the players have seen an increase in their ASSISTS p36. Hill, West, and Paul are all up in Ast/36 while Lance and Roy are the same as last year. That's per minutes so it's not a playing time thing. They aren't making more FGs per game so it's not like there are more opportunities to earn assists.

I suggest that the coaching staff has improved the offensive flow and ball movement. I think it's been more noticeable in the last few weeks where we've seen scoring up. I think Vogel or a player referenced the directive to make the extra pass in recent weeks. They've had some TO problems that also suggest trying to adapt to a change in style in the passing game.

Coopdog23

03-02-2013, 07:10 PM

No, Danny probably won't start for the rest of the season because Vogel knows how much chemistry the starters have. He now gives them 10 more points off the bench. He is the final piece to the championship puzzle

Naptown_Seth

03-02-2013, 07:31 PM

this post reminds me of what LeBron said about Paul, when a reporter asked him how Paul has gotten better he said it wasn't that he wasn't capable of this last year, its just that Danny being out made him realize he is capable of this. Though if you are gonna tell me Paul has not improved on offense from last year to this year and that the only reason he is better is he is shooting more so he has a higher ppg average I will strongly disagree
The numbers are the same as last year. That's not black magic, that's cold facts.

Paul shot 44% last year, 42.9% this year.
Paul shot 38.5% from 3 last year, 38.6% from 3 this year.

Paul earned more FTAs per minute last year than this year.

Paul had a higher FTA/FGA ratio last year than this year.

Paul's Points per FGA were 1.25 last year
Paul's Points per FGA are 1.18 this year

The image of this greater scorer this season, a guy that has found some new shots or touch simply doesn't match the actual numbers.

Can we make a case that he hits tougher shots perhaps? So that actually suggests that without Danny Paul has been forced to take and make harder shots than Danny was getting him last year? So Paul figured out how good he was by being challenged, and the results are that he's not shooting better due to the difficulty of getting good looks without Danny around, and Danny being back is going to "hurt him"?

I need to hear a story that matches the numbers. So far all I see is a 50% increase in shots taken per game, tied partially to an increase in minutes per game. As the starting SG he was going to see those minutes regardless, just like nearly every other NBA player.

Go look at the progression of Pippen or Reggie Miller. Look at their 3rd year PT or FGAs, look at Danny in year 3 and then even year 4. This is what guys do, what all-stars do. They don't need other players out of the way. What happens is that their awareness and confidence come up as they get used to the situation and learn the NBA game.

Paul and Lance were going to get better this year or they were going to be disappointments. They were very young and were expected to progress.

Or is the suggestion that DAVID WEST IS RETARDING PAUL'S GROWTH? I mean West has been the man for the offense just as much as Paul, and especially for the first few months when Paul was apparently learning to be the man without Granger there. West's shots are up 4 per game as are his minutes. But no one says "man, if only West was out of the way then player X could be better".

Pippen and Reggie learned to be better and took more FGAs in year 3 without the absence of other stars. Reggie scored 8 more points per game from year 2 to year 3, but Person, Detlef and Rik were all getting big minutes and shots for that year 3 team. So how did Reggie learn he could be "the man" and make his first ASG despite Chuck, the star and former ROY, still being on the team and still taking more FGAs per game than Reggie?

Ditto Pippen who improved despite Jordan being in the way in year 3 (and 4, etc).

What's happened is people are writing the story after the fact to fit what they think must be true, when in fact Paul's progression (and Lance) is a story that's been told hundreds of times in the NBA WITHOUT a star going out. If Paul had this same progression while Danny was playing no one would have thought "wow, that's odd, I never thought Paul could improve with Danny on the team".

Heck, Smits got the "chance" to progress when Stipo went out, but it wasn't until later when he matured and the team got better that Rik became a reliable player. He didn't hit 20 points p36 till year 4 and then stayed there. So much for "trial by fire". Ultimately it was more about experience and age than anything.

joew8302

03-02-2013, 07:48 PM

Anyone who actually buys mindless drivel about Granger not being valuable just doesn't understand the game of basketball.

Sure, reasonable minds can differ about how good Ganger is etc, but to say he has a negative effect on the team is absurd.

BlueCollarColts

03-02-2013, 07:48 PM

The numbers are the same as last year. That's not black magic, that's cold facts.

Paul shot 44% last year, 42.9% this year.
Paul shot 38.5% from 3 last year, 38.6% from 3 this year.

Paul earned more FTAs per minute last year than this year.

Paul had a higher FTA/FGA ratio last year than this year.

Paul's Points per FGA were 1.25 last year
Paul's Points per FGA are 1.18 this year

The image of this greater scorer this season, a guy that has found some new shots or touch simply doesn't match the actual numbers.

Can we make a case that he hits tougher shots perhaps? So that actually suggests that without Danny Paul has been forced to take and make harder shots than Danny was getting him last year? So Paul figured out how good he was by being challenged, and the results are that he's not shooting better due to the difficulty of getting good looks without Danny around, and Danny being back is going to "hurt him"?

I need to hear a story that matches the numbers. So far all I see is a 50% increase in shots taken per game, tied partially to an increase in minutes per game. As the starting SG he was going to see those minutes regardless, just like nearly every other NBA player.

Go look at the progression of Pippen or Reggie Miller. Look at their 3rd year PT or FGAs, look at Danny in year 3 and then even year 4. This is what guys do, what all-stars do. They don't need other players out of the way. What happens is that their awareness and confidence come up as they get used to the situation and learn the NBA game.

Paul and Lance were going to get better this year or they were going to be disappointments. They were very young and were expected to progress.

Or is the suggestion that DAVID WEST IS RETARDING PAUL'S GROWTH? I mean West has been the man for the offense just as much as Paul, and especially for the first few months when Paul was apparently learning to be the man without Granger there. West's shots are up 4 per game as are his minutes. But no one says "man, if only West was out of the way then player X could be better".

Pippen and Reggie learned to be better and took more FGAs in year 3 without the absence of other stars. Reggie scored 8 more points per game from year 2 to year 3, but Person, Detlef and Rik were all getting big minutes and shots for that year 3 team. So how did Reggie learn he could be "the man" and make his first ASG despite Chuck, the star and former ROY, still being on the team and still taking more FGAs per game than Reggie?

Ditto Pippen who improved despite Jordan being in the way in year 3 (and 4, etc).

What's happened is people are writing the story after the fact to fit what they think must be true, when in fact Paul's progression (and Lance) is a story that's been told hundreds of times in the NBA WITHOUT a star going out. If Paul had this same progression while Danny was playing no one would have thought "wow, that's odd, I never thought Paul could improve with Danny on the team".

Heck, Smits got the "chance" to progress when Stipo went out, but it wasn't until later when he matured and the team got better that Rik became a reliable player. He didn't hit 20 points p36 till year 4 and then stayed there. So much for "trial by fire". Ultimately it was more about experience and age than anything.
Paul has gotten better at creating his own shot this year, he was practicing his ball handling over the summer, which has made him a better creator, something he was not very good at last year, which has helped make him a better scorer this year.

Pacerized

03-02-2013, 07:50 PM

Grangers minutes will start increasing during the next 2 weeks and I do expect it to have a slight impact on Lances minutes but the team will still be better off. I have no doubt that Granger will be starting as soon as he's up for 25 to 30 minutes hopefully within the next week to 10 days.

BlueCollarColts

03-02-2013, 07:50 PM

also, don't get too caught up with your stats saying Paul has not improved that much, stats don't tell the whole story, they are a helpful tool, but they don't tell the whole story

vnzla81

03-02-2013, 07:55 PM

also, don't get too caught up with your stats saying Paul has not improved that much, stats don't tell the whole story, they are a helpful tool, but they don't tell the whole story

I believe that you are saying this to the wrong guy.

Peck

03-02-2013, 08:09 PM

Seth,

I think that one of the things that has dramatically improved by Paul this year, and frankly only after the zero point game, is how he finishes at the rim.

Instead of the whimsical one handed scoop shot he has started powering home dunks and at the very least just solid layups. I would love to see what his shooting % at the rim was prior to and after that zero point game.

However, IMO, this doesn't have anything to do with Granger one way or the other. I just wanted to throw that out there because to me it really is the biggest difference I see with him this year.

Ace E.Anderson

03-02-2013, 08:31 PM

this post reminds me of what LeBron said about Paul, when a reporter asked him how Paul has gotten better he said it wasn't that he wasn't capable of this last year, its just that Danny being out made him realize he is capable of this. Though if you are gonna tell me Paul has not improved on offense from last year to this year and that the only reason he is better is he is shooting more so he has a higher ppg average I will strongly disagree

He's obviously a better player, but I think what Seth is saying is that Paul didnt all of a sudden develop new talent out of thin air. Most star players make the jump in that 3rd nd 4th yr bc their awareness is up as well as their confidence. Players learn where they can get shots from, when they can get them, how to read defenses, etc.

The one skill Paul's improved is ball handling (which as the TO's suggest, he can work on them a bit more). He's obviously more consistent but again that comes with time in the league, figuring out "what works for you" type of thing.

We all knew Paul was talented as hell, but now he has the experience and the confidence to take advantage of those talents. In Seth's mind, this would have happened whether Danny was injured or not.

IMO, skillwise, Paul's improved ball handling has opened the door for everything else. Step backs, drives to the basket, one dribble pull up off the curl, etc. improving that one skill exponentially, plus the rise in awareness, confidence, and experience, has made him an AS

OlBlu

03-02-2013, 08:35 PM

Anyone who actually buys mindless drivel about Granger not being valuable just doesn't understand the game of basketball.

Sure, reasonable minds can differ about how good Ganger is etc, but to say he has a negative effect on the team is absurd.

It didn't take him long to jack up ten shots and miss all of them......:cool: ...

Downtown Bang!

03-02-2013, 08:50 PM

The only negative effect I see is that Paul's best position is the 3 and that is where Granger plays his best basketball as well. Eventually something would have to give but for now (assuming DG is healthy) the team will be better with both of them on the floor. My guess is salary limitations will force a change long before any other on the floor issues.

doctor-h

03-02-2013, 11:10 PM

Paul is the best 3 on the team. Lance is the best 2 on the team. If you take your best player and move him from his best position it will negatively affect the team. The best way for Danny to help the team is to embrace a role off the bench. He can add much needed scoring with that unit. He can also provide veteran leadership. I am not saying Danny is not a good player, he is but he is not better than Paul at that position and he can't play the 2. Your stats regarding Paul and his improvement are misleading. The real improvement in this team has come at the defensive end. Paul is a much better defender at the 3. Lance is a better defender at the 2. Paul has also become more clutch and assertive on offense. He puts more pressure on the defense. He creates for teammates better. He makes players around him better. He doesn't need someone else to help create a shot for him. He rebounds better. Dannys role on the team has changed and his days are probably numbered if he doesn't accept it.

Sookie

03-02-2013, 11:16 PM

Paul is the best 3 on the team. Lance is the best 2 on the team. If you take your best player and move him from his best position it will negatively affect the team. The best way for Danny to help the team is to embrace a role off the bench. He can add much needed scoring with that unit. He can also provide veteran leadership. I am not saying Danny is not a good player, he is but he is not better than Paul at that position and he can't play the 2. Your stats regarding Paul and his improvement are misleading. The real improvement in this team has come at the defensive end. Paul is a much better defender at the 3. Lance is a better defender at the 2. Paul has also become more clutch and assertive on offense. He puts more pressure on the defense. He creates for teammates better. He makes players around him better. He doesn't need someone else to help create a shot for him. He rebounds better. Dannys role on the team has changed and his days are probably numbered if he doesn't accept it.

Except of course, in our offense, it's not so much 2 and 3, but wings. And Danny and PG are the best wings on the team.

Teams tend to find a way to put their five best players on the floor at crunch time. It'll be a mistake if the Pacers don't do that. And yes, Granger is one of the top 5.

CJ Jones

03-02-2013, 11:39 PM

Paul is the best 3 on the team. Lance is the best 2 on the team. If you take your best player and move him from his best position it will negatively affect the team. The best way for Danny to help the team is to embrace a role off the bench. He can add much needed scoring with that unit. He can also provide veteran leadership. I am not saying Danny is not a good player, he is but he is not better than Paul at that position and he can't play the 2. Your stats regarding Paul and his improvement are misleading. The real improvement in this team has come at the defensive end. Paul is a much better defender at the 3. Lance is a better defender at the 2. Paul has also become more clutch and assertive on offense. He puts more pressure on the defense. He creates for teammates better. He makes players around him better. He doesn't need someone else to help create a shot for him. He rebounds better. Dannys role on the team has changed and his days are probably numbered if he doesn't accept it.

uh oh, here comes the clutch stat....

btw I agree with you mostly. Even the clutch thing, although apparently in the final minute he's missed everything. It seems like he's been pretty good in the 4th quarter leading up to that final minute. He's had some pretty big fourth quarters. I'll have to find that stat somewhere.

Ace E.Anderson

03-03-2013, 12:17 AM

More clutch than Danny?

According to 82 games.com, Danny was in the top 5 in the "clutch" category last season.

Lance isn't the best 2 on the team, Paul is. Lance IS the best glue guy on the team, and does a good job of filling in the blanks, but he can do that with the starters or the bench.

ilive4sports

03-03-2013, 12:20 AM

It didn't take him long to jack up ten shots and miss all of them......:cool: ...
Ummm Danny went 1-10 thank you very much. He didnt miss all of them.

OlBlu

03-03-2013, 09:28 AM

Ummm Danny went 1-10 thank you very much. He didnt miss all of them.

So he hit one. You could make more than 1 out of 10 right now. Danny is a volume chucker who doesn't play defense at all. He hasn't changed and he won't change. Put him in the starting lineup and he will take shots away from mostly PG but everyone will have fewer looks. Keep him on the bench and let those starters stay together.....:cool: ...

DJVendetta

03-03-2013, 10:27 AM

So he hit one. You could make more than 1 out of 10 right now. Danny is a volume chucker who doesn't play defense at all. He hasn't changed and he won't change. Put him in the starting lineup and he will take shots away from mostly PG but everyone will have fewer looks. Keep him on the bench and let those starters stay together.....:cool: ...

Do you always just make a negative comments about certain things that don't really matter and then put an emoticon at the end of your comments that look like your avatar? lol...........:cool:.........

adamscb

03-03-2013, 10:37 AM

Do you always just make a negative comments about certain things that don't really matter and then put an emoticon at the end of your comments that look like your avatar? lol...........:cool:.........

yes, yes he does...:cool:...

joew8302

03-03-2013, 12:06 PM

It didn't take him long to jack up ten shots and miss all of them......:cool: ...

Thank you for proving the point I was attempting to make on my first post! I wish I could turn this in as an experiment.

Hypothesis: People saying Granger has negative value don't have a clue about basketball.

Experiment- This thread

Conclusion- this post.

Grade- A+++++

doctor-h

03-03-2013, 12:43 PM

Thank you for proving the point I was attempting to make on my first post! I wish I could turn this in as an experiment.

Hypothesis: People saying Granger has negative value don't have a clue about basketball.

Experiment- This thread

Conclusion- this post.

Grade- A+++++

First of all I didn't say Danny had negative value. I said he has more value off the bench. The Pacers have played very well with Lance in the starting lineup. He gets better every game. He provides a toughness and energy that this team really needs. Granger is not in the Pacers future and Lance is a big key to their success in the future. In fact I believe he could be mentioned in the same way Paul is in a couple of years if he continues to improve. All he needed was a chance. He also brings an excitement to the game that this franchise desperately needs. I for one am not interested in watching Danny do his best Murphy, Dunleavy home run trot up and down the floor all night. Play with passion and energy and that is what Lance does.

joew8302

03-03-2013, 12:48 PM

First of all I didn't say Danny had negative value. I said he has more value off the bench. The Pacers have played very well with Lance in the starting lineup. He gets better every game. He provides a toughness and energy that this team really needs. Granger is not in the Pacers future and Lance is a big key to their success in the future. In fact I believe he could be mentioned in the same way Paul is in a couple of years if he continues to improve. All he needed was a chance. He also brings an excitement to the game that this franchise desperately needs. I for one am not interested in watching Danny do his best Murphy, Dunleavy home run trot up and down the floor all night. Play with passion and energy and that is what Lance does.

Now Danny is Dunleavy/Murphy with no passion. Yet, if someone were to defend Danny against this ridiculousness I guess we would be considered "fanboys" by some.

Lance has done well, there is no doubt about it, but he has not surpassed Danny.

Peck

03-03-2013, 01:45 PM

Again, why must we eat our own?

If I like Danny Granger I must hate Paul George, Lance Stephenson, David West and the Easter Bunny.

I love what Lance brings to the table, in fact I was more of a Lance fan in the past than I was a George fan but since Paul has found the religion of finishing strong at the rim the roles have been reversed.

As a Granger fan all I want to say is this, whatever is best for the Indiana Pacers. If that means Danny coming off of the bench then fine, if it means starting fine, if it means playing shooting guard or center for that matter fine.

I want the Indiana Pacers to win, I believe Danny Granger can help in that endeavor.

vnzla81

03-03-2013, 02:05 PM

Now Danny is Dunleavy/Murphy with no passion. Yet, if someone were to defend Danny against this ridiculousness I guess we would be considered "fanboys" by some.

Lance has done well, there is no doubt about it, but he has not surpassed Danny.

The new Danny Granger? yes, I mean what have you seen of this new Danny that tells you that he is better than Lance or even Hill?

I don't want to poop on the guy in his few games back(I'm waiting more weeks before trying to judge him) but acting like he is already kicking a** and is already better than Lance, Hill and even OJ is not accurate.

Just today I was thinking about how long has Danny been trying to recover and I don't know if you guys know this but it has almost been a whole year(he got injured on the playoffs last year), so he has been recovering for almost a year and he is saying that he is only at 65%? anybody sees what I see here? just thought I pointed that out.

Bball

03-03-2013, 02:08 PM

The new Danny Granger? yes, I mean what have you seen of this new Danny that tells you that he is better than Lance or even Hill?

I don't want to poop on the guy in his few games back(I'm waiting more weeks before trying to judge him) but acting like he is already kicking a** and is already better than Lance, Hill and even OJ is not accurate.

Just today I was thinking about how long has Danny been trying to recover and I don't know if you guys know but it has almost been a whole year(he got injured on the playoffs last year), so he has been recovering for almost a year and he is saying that he is only at 65%? anybody sees what I see here? just thought I pointed that out.

He sat out games at the end of the season last year for some type of knee problem/injury (to rest it)... so is it just coincidence he actually injured it in the playoffs? Worsened maybe?

joew8302

03-03-2013, 02:29 PM

The new Danny Granger? yes, I mean what have you seen of this new Danny that tells you that he is better than Lance or even Hill?

I don't want to poop on the guy in his few games back(I'm waiting more weeks before trying to judge him) but acting like he is already kicking a** and is already better than Lance, Hill and even OJ is not accurate.

Just today I was thinking about how long has Danny been trying to recover and I don't know if you guys know this but it has almost been a whole year(he got injured on the playoffs last year), so he has been recovering for almost a year and he is saying that he is only at 65%? anybody sees what I see here? just thought I pointed that out.

Again, who is acting like he is kicking ***? Sometimes I don't know who are you arguing with or talking to.

Obviously Danny is rusty. But I think after watching him play for 7 years I know what kind of player he is and what he can bring to the team.

Everyone should have expected him to struggle early while he gets his body right, but I think after watching him for as long as he has been on the team we should know what to expect and his is capable of. I mean it is not like he relied on athleticism that much anyway, so I am not overly concerned.

vnzla81

03-03-2013, 02:52 PM

Again, who is acting like he is kicking ***? Sometimes I don't know who are you arguing with or talking to.

Obviously Danny is rusty. But I think after watching him play for 7 years I know what kind of player he is and what he can bring to the team.

Everyone should have expected him to struggle early while he gets his body right, but I think after watching him for as long as he has been on the team we should know what to expect and his is capable of. I mean it is not like he relied on athleticism that much anyway, so I am not overly concerned.

Ok my bad for the kicking a** comment, my point is that you are comparing Lance to the old Danny and there is no way the new Danny is better than Lance, Hill or OJ, can you guys wait until Danny shows anything to say that he is better than Lance and the other two guys?

Yes Danny has been a good player for 7 years but are we going to ignore his knee injury? again it has been almost a year of recovery time and he is only 65% healthy, how do we know that he is going to be 100% ever again?

I guess my point is that Danny at 65% is not better that many players on the team.

edit: Note that I'm comparing the Danny that we have RIGHT NOW with other players not the Danny that we had few years ago.

Cousy47

03-03-2013, 03:34 PM

IIRC, I was one of the few people who wanted Danny to come off the bench for the rest of the season. Maybe even through the playoffs. Danny's skillset along with Lance and Paul's growth lets Frank shorten the rotation drastically. When/if Danny gets back to full stride, he and Lance can take all of DJ's minutes and most of Tyler's and OJ's. Against most teams Danny should see time at both the 3 and 4, Paulat the 2 and 3 and Lance at the 1 and 2.

Sookie

03-03-2013, 03:40 PM

The "new" Danny has only been around for 3 games. Of course he's going to be rusty and working on things.

No one has no idea of knowing what Danny will look like when he's 100% recovered. But it's actually more likely than not that he'll be closer to 100% Danny than even 85% Danny.

joew8302

03-03-2013, 03:58 PM

Ok my bad for the kicking a** comment, my point is that you are comparing Lance to the old Danny and there is no way the new Danny is better than Lance, Hill or OJ, can you guys wait until Danny shows anything to say that he is better than Lance and the other two guys?

Yes Danny has been a good player for 7 years but are we going to ignore his knee injury? again it has been almost a year of recovery time and he is only 65% healthy, how do we know that he is going to be 100% ever again?

I guess my point is that Danny at 65% is not better that many players on the team.

edit: Note that I'm comparing the Danny that we have RIGHT NOW with other players not the Danny that we had few years ago.

Understood. And I like Lance, Hill and all the guys.

My points are:

1. Danny is a proven commodity

2. That commodity never, ever included a reliance on athleticism

If I was a Bulls fan I would be very, very concerned with Rose's injury. Will he ever be the same player? Who knows. Granger's injury is different. Danny has always relied on his ability to shoot the ball. I highly doubt he has completely forgot how to get open and shoot because of his injury. Will he be rusty, absolutely. Does that mean he forgets how to play? I doubt it. I guess time will tell who is right.

joew8302

03-03-2013, 04:02 PM

Also, I guess I have never understood why Danny Granger is so polarizing? I mean he is either a Hall of Famer or trade bait for cap space and a 2018 2nd round pick.

Why can't he just be a good, solid player? Was he ever a superstar? I don't think so. But I certainly believe that when healthy he is in a group of players like Rudy Gay and Louol Deng.

The irony here is that I bet 75% of the board would be on cloud 9 if we signed one of these guys....

Major Cold

03-03-2013, 04:32 PM

Again, why must we eat our own?

If I like Danny Granger I must hate Paul George, Lance Stephenson, David West and the Easter Bunny.

I love what Lance brings to the table, in fact I was more of a Lance fan in the past than I was a George fan but since Paul has found the religion of finishing strong at the rim the roles have been reversed.

As a Granger fan all I want to say is this, whatever is best for the Indiana Pacers. If that means Danny coming off of the bench then fine, if it means starting fine, if it means playing shooting guard or center for that matter fine.

I want the Indiana Pacers to win, I believe Danny Granger can help in that endeavor.

We are in win now mode folks. We don't need to throw Lance a courtesy start for development sakes. Those years are behind. He is skilled and benefits our team now. And if he is better in the starting unit than Danny then I am all for it. If Danny starts solely for matchup reasons then I am all for that. The Nets would struggle with PG on Johnson and Danny on Wallace. Johnson ate Lance alive last time we played them. But Lance really challenged Wade, more so than PG last year after game 4.

Lance should be our 6th starter. And if that means OJ and Tyler get less minutes then fine. I would like for West to not get 40+ minutes the rest of the regular season. And if Danny needs to play the 4 for that to happen so be it.

What I am saying is...In Vogel I trust. What he says and does is better than what you or I can do behind a screen. Unless he goes all JOB on us.

I don't have to consider that much; once vnzla comes out with his utter nonsense that even OJ is better than DG (and no screw your hidden nuances, you hid them for a reason) than it show to me we are in nonsense territory.

PG has not even prven to be of DG's calibre,please come back to finalize this discussion in 5 years time, for now you are not only behind the 8ball, you are completely out of order.

and please ignore whatever vnzla writes, it is only another version of olblu.

Naptown_Seth

03-03-2013, 08:43 PM

We are in win now mode folks. We don't need to throw Lance a courtesy start for development sakes. Those years are behind. He is skilled and benefits our team now. And if he is better in the starting unit than Danny then I am all for it. If Danny starts solely for matchup reasons then I am all for that. The Nets would struggle with PG on Johnson and Danny on Wallace. Johnson ate Lance alive last time we played them. But Lance really challenged Wade, more so than PG last year after game 4.

Lance should be our 6th starter. And if that means OJ and Tyler get less minutes then fine. I would like for West to not get 40+ minutes the rest of the regular season. And if Danny needs to play the 4 for that to happen so be it.

What I am saying is...In Vogel I trust. What he says and does is better than what you or I can do behind a screen. Unless he goes all JOB on us.
You hit the fanbase problem on the head. There is a sizeable minority that are still in "how can we somehow become a contender" and are failing to recognize that the rebuild ended last year. THIS is the team, and it's better with Danny than with "cheap prospect to save cap space". If you are going to push toward the tax range, this is the kind of 5-6 man group you do that for.

Imagine if you could just dump Green's contract. That would help on space and get things close to possible. But most people worry about how they can move Danny.

And my OP was about the idea that only on the Pacers do 3rd year players progress only if another key player is out. No one thinks "thank god Rose is out, now the Bulls backup guards learn to shine". I'm so glad Parker is out as a Spurs fan because he was holding Player X back. It sounds stupid in that context. But in Indy it's this crazy given truth.

Paul and Lance were headed this direction even with Danny playing. Both were better in year 2 than year 1 and Danny played in year 2.

OlBlu

03-03-2013, 10:31 PM

I don't have to consider that much; once vnzla comes out with his utter nonsense that even OJ is better than DG (and no screw your hidden nuances, you hid them for a reason) than it show to me we are in nonsense territory.

PG has not even prven to be of DG's calibre,please come back to finalize this discussion in 5 years time, for now you are not only behind the 8ball, you are completely out of order.

and please ignore whatever vnzla writes, it is only another version of olblu.

Hey, I didn't say anything.......:cool:

OlBlu

03-03-2013, 10:34 PM

yes, yes he does...:cool:...

Hey!!! Of course I do.....:cool:

OlBlu

03-03-2013, 10:35 PM

Do you always just make a negative comments about certain things that don't really matter and then put an emoticon at the end of your comments that look like your avatar? lol...........:cool:.........

Hey!!! :cool:

dgranger17

03-04-2013, 01:59 AM

this post reminds me of what LeBron said about Paul, when a reporter asked him how Paul has gotten better he said it wasn't that he wasn't capable of this last year, its just that Danny being out made him realize he is capable of this. Though if you are gonna tell me Paul has not improved on offense from last year to this year and that the only reason he is better is he is shooting more so he has a higher ppg average I will strongly disagree

I agree because there are many factors, but statistically we're wrong.

PG averaged 12.1 points last year on 9.7 shots (4.3 makes... 1.4 threes). He's averaging 17.8 points this year on 15.1 shots (6.5 makes... 2.5 threes). He's averaging 2 more made field goals each game than he was last year, 1 of those being from behind the arc. That's 5 points (FT's made/attempted are pretty much identical) every game. The difference between last year and this is year is roughly 5 points. One 2 point FG and one 3 point FG equals five points.

I'm not saying Paul hasn't improved, because he obviously has... and numbers never tell the entire story, but the original post has some merit.

There are many arugments that could be made for and against Danny. More minutes for Paul and Lance means more opportunity (Asik in Houston is another good example with that)... Danny makes the point guard, power forward, and center better... Danny just got in Paul's way... Paul may not be Paul without Danny.... we could literally argue both sides forever.

Lance has been huge, Paul has been an All-Star, we're a Top 5 team in the NBA, and Danny is slowly working himself back into the lineup (hopefully). It's tough to argue about any of that.

We win 3 out of every 4 games Danny plays this year. Also tough to argue about that.

Side note... I've been in the Chicago area since early Saturday afternoon. I have been wearing Blue and Gold every time I step foot outside my hotel room. This town is completely consumed by the historic Blackhawks that nobody has even acknowledged my existence. Don't get me wrong... I don't deserve to have my existence acknowledged, but at least one person should say something right? Long story short, this town is obviously fair weather when it comes to their winter sports.

Another side note... for those of you who live in Chicago, mad respect to you (unless you're a Bulls fan). I've been here before to party and whatnot, but this is my first time actually having to commute around the city. It's awful. I never want to come back. The fact that you can live here and actually enjoy it... I got nothing but love for you (unless you're a Bulls fan). Then again, there are bars and Italian eateries every half block so it's tough to be too upset. I'll still take San Francisco 19 times out of 18 over Chicago. The suburbs west of O'Hare are decent, but that's about all I can give a compliment to. Midway is the worst airport in the world and everything in between Midway and O'Hare is just a pain in the ***. Again, if you got love for this city, I got mad respect for you (unless you're a Bulls fan).

There are more than a handful of Hoosier fans around these parts, but as previously stated this a fair weather city during the winter months so it's tough to decipher that love for college hoops.

Larry Bird.

Naptown_Seth

03-05-2013, 03:55 PM

I'm not saying Paul hasn't improved, because he obviously has... and numbers never tell the entire story, but the original post has some merit.
Here's the big thing on numbers - just what are people citing when they try to prove that Danny isn't as good, or whatever flaws they want to point out?

Numbers.

So the stats come out when it's FOR your side, but when it's AGAINST your side then they are "meaningless". The value is always the same. They tell a lot of the story, but not all of the story.

Most stats are pretty poor, and this includes PPG, RPG, APG and FG%. They don't explain schemes, defensive matchups, if someone set a shot screen for you, if someone blocked out for you, or if people are missing wide open shots and killing your assist totals.

By the way, for my monthly rant on the subject, the flaws with "+/-" are the same with all stats - the stat is based on who is on the court with you. This is true for every F-bomb number in the sport. What, Nash doesn't help your FG%, Shaq didn't help his Magic teammates 3P%, Roy doesn't help everyone else's DEF Rating?

So back to the topic at hand. Paul is a classic case of seeing something and adding more to the numbers than is really there. You FEEL like he's killing it all the time, but you overlook the actual output when it dips. Often if the team wins and it's Hill or West or Roy or Lance, you ignore that Paul had a sub-par night.

Recently Paul has had several tough nights. He just had recent poor games in Philly, vs Brooklyn (1-10 in loss), in Detroit and then the last game vs Chicago. In fact his poor outing against the Bulls is a big reason why the Pacers didn't destroy them.

The NUMBERS REMEMBER THOSE GAMES, it's humans who do the forgetting. This is true with all stats, always, in every field you can think of. This isn't a Paul or Danny or NBA thing. Emotions at the time affect memories, circumstances make things seem different. If Paul misses late shots in a big game that they lose, even if he's shot well up to that point, then people will remember that as a bad night.

Best example for Pacers history - 8 in 8.9 game was saved not by Reggie, but by Rik Smits keeping it from being a 30 pt blow out on Reggie's bad shooting night. Reggie had the moment while gimping along in the other 47 minutes (prior to heroics he was 5-16, 1-5, 23 points thanks to 12-13 FTMs while Starks outshot him and led the Knicks in scoring, Smits goes for 34 on 13-19 vs Ewing who goes 4-15 for 11 points)

Look, I love Paul George. I'm the one who first started the #PaulStar on Twitter. This isn't a bash Paul thread. This isn't even a hurray for Danny thread.

The POINT OF THE OP was that nothing in the history of NBA player development suggests that Paul and Lance wouldn't have improved if Danny had been around. Lance has benefited from playing with starters, but his biggest improvement has been his early season shooting, which had been a weak point last year and I assume a point of effort in his summer.

If Pippen can improve with Jordan playing next to him and Reggie can improve with Person playing next to him, and both showing a similar climb at year 3 (and 4) as what Paul just did, then I think Paul was headed there independent of Danny playing too.

You know what Danny being out did? It made a bunch of people pay more attention to Paul and Lance. People assumed this void much like they assumed with Dale and Rik out that the team would have no low post offense/defense. So JO "improved" without Rik and Dale there just like Paul and Lance did without Danny - meaning a modest, natural 22 yr old player improvement that got massive attention because the void created a spotlight of attention.

YOU (and national writers) are the ones that needed Danny out to see what Paul and Lance were becoming, but they didn't need it. Just like Roy had to go out for fans to realize his full impact on the defense. Just like Dale and Rik weren't going to hold back JO anymore than they held back Antonio, but without them there his nearly identical p36 numbers suddenly stood out.

Will Galen

03-05-2013, 06:11 PM

You know what Danny being out did? It made a bunch of people pay more attention to Paul and Lance. People assumed this void much like they assumed with Dale and Rik out that the team would have no low post offense/defense. So JO "improved" without Rik and Dale there just like Paul and Lance did without Danny - meaning a modest, natural 22 yr old player improvement that got massive attention because the void created a spotlight of attention.

YOU (and national writers) are the ones that needed Danny out to see what Paul and Lance were becoming, but they didn't need it. Just like Roy had to go out for fans to realize his full impact on the defense. Just like Dale and Rik weren't going to hold back JO anymore than they held back Antonio, but without them there his nearly identical p36 numbers suddenly stood out.

If you are talking about Jermaine, he wasn't here when Rik and Dale were. Dale was traded for him.